Explaining natural wonders: bacterial intelligence (Animals)

by dhw, Thursday, June 15, 2017, 12:50 (2717 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: And all my ID scientists agree with me.
dhw: On what? That God preprogrammed or dabbled to make sure the wasp laid its eggs on the spider’s back, so that he could keep life going until he was able to produce humans? If you mean cellular intelligence, the fact that scientists disagree confirms my point that your and their conclusion can only be subjective.
DAVID: That a designing mind is absolutely required to create life and subsequent evolution.

That was not what I asked. Your answer suggests that you don’t even have support from your ID scientists on the subjects I asked about.

DAVID: He may not be limited as you try to imply. It is obvious you dogmatically refuse to accept the idea that God knows exactly what He is doing.
dhw: Totally wrong. I offered three alternative hypotheses (no dogmatic beliefs), the first two of which allow for limitations, though he would still know exactly what he was doing: namely, experimenting or coming up with new ideas. Both of these may question how much control he has in pursuing his purposes, but even you vacillate over that problem from one day to the next. My third hypothesis (the autonomous IM) also has him knowing exactly what he is doing: namely, deliberately setting in motion a free-for-all, though always with the option of dabbling – just as you believe he knew exactly what he was doing when he deliberately gave humans free will. What I dogmatically refuse to accept is that only your interpretation of God’s motives and methods is correct, even though it makes no sense, while no other hypothesis should even be considered.

DAVID: I have realized that we are off on a tangent. Of course I can't prove exactly why God does what He does, and some of it makes no sense to me. But you are debating with me God's possible motives, etc., when you don't accept the reality of God existing and I do. I've realized in thinking back that whenever I've raised the issue of chance vs. design as the only two possibilities for life and evolution you've slipped us into these discussions about God's motives and/or methods. You deny chance. Only design is left and only a planning mind can design. Can you offer a third alternative? I can't, which is why I believe.

No, it is not a tangent. The existence of God is a different subject from his possible methods and motives if he does exist, and when I question your interpretation of these, you try to use my agnosticism as a means of diverting attention away from the inconsistencies in your arguments. That is precisely what you are doing here. In all our discussions on how evolution works, I allow for the existence of God. I do not believe for one second that every theistic evolutionist agrees with you that he designed the universe and all innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders only in order to keep life going until he could produce humans. I offer alternative theistic interpretations which are in line with various -isms and -ologies, such as deism and process theology.

As for chance versus design, not only have we agreed a hundred times that this is one of the most powerful arguments for the existence of God (the other being various so-called psychic experiences), but we have also a hundred times discussed a third choice, which is some form of panpsychism: the evolution of countless intelligences, as opposed to the eternal existence of one intelligence. I’m sorry, but that subject does not in any way alter the fact that your exclusively anthropocentric view of God’s evolutionary motives and methods doesn’t make sense, even to you.